Legal Opinion · Dissent

Granto v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 24, 2017No. Appeal No. 1Published

1DissentCurran, J.

I respectfully dissent in appeal No. 1. The majority and I agree that this proceeding is in the nature of mandamus. Such a proceeding “must be commenced within four months after the refusal by respondent, upon the demand of petitioner [s], to perform its duty” (Matter of Densmore v Altmar-Parish-Williamstown Cent. School Dist., 265 AD2d 838, 839 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 758 [2000]). “[T]he demand must be made within a reasonable time after the right to make the demand occurs” (Matter of Devens v Gokey, 12 AD2d 135, 136 [1961], affd 10 NY2d 898 [1961]). “[A] demand should be made no more than…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Austin v. Board of Higher EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1959
  2. Devens v. GokeyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961
  3. Devens v. GokeyNew York Court of Appeals · 1961
  4. People Ex Rel. Gas-Light Co. v. . Common CouncilNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
  5. People ex rel. Young v. CollisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API